W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: Clarification Of Technique 1.3

From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:30:26 -0400
Message-ID: <013b01c00ba6$41fc62f0$b040968e@ic.utoronto.ca>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: <love26@gorge.net>, "WAI WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Thanks for the clarification on what should go in the audio description.

My question though is: When is an audio description required?

For example, the following 2 sites have videos:

Movie trailers: http://www.apple.com/trailers/
TV clips:

Do all the videos at these sites require an audio description?

Can anyone suggest a video that does not require an audio description?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Cc: <love26@gorge.net>; "WAI WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: Clarification Of Technique 1.3

> Err, the flak isn't at you, it is a statement about the proposal.
> whatever priority it is, the author, or some further editor, has to decide
> put in description. The user may discover that they have no idea what is
> going on, or they may not even be aware of it.
> So I would suggest a simple test is that if the auditory description
> important details to escape notice, then it is inadequate. Reading the
> transcript of this may be enough for someone who knows the video itself.
> As Geoff said, description need not be enormous, but does need to convey
> the video conveys. In the example used earlier of Sinead O'Connor, an
> description of how it looks "Sinead O'Connor, head shaved, sings, visible
> only from the neck up" and at the critical moment "she sheds a single
> tear" may suffice. If a teacher were to use the video to exlain lighting
> effects, (under the "fair use" provisions of international copyright
> treaties) it would be reasonable to expect them to add the relevant
> commentary, which is in fact what one would expect them to add in a
> situation anyway.
> As an alternative consider the stage directions given for most plays - a
> lines to set a scene, a few key details. Not often enough done at the
> but hardly a gargantuan task.
> Charles McCN
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Chris Ridpath wrote:
>   "Instead I think that for practical reasons we should change this from a
>   priority 1 to a priority 2."
>   I knew I was going to catch flack for this proposal but thought it
needed to
>   be said.
>   If we leave it as a priority 1 then we're in the position of letting the
>   user decide if the video content requires a synchronized audio
>   So when is an audio description required?
>   a) The a/v presentation itself is important to the user's well being.
>   b) The a/v presentation itself is important to the culture.
>   c) The audio track does not adequately describe the video.
>   d) Other suggestions??
>   Can anyone suggest a site that has an synched audio description for an
>   presentation?
>   Chris
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: "William Loughborough" <love26@gorge.net>
>   To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
>   Cc: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>; "Wendy A Chisholm"
>   <wendy@w3.org>; "WAI WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>;
>   Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 12:13 PM
>   Subject: Re: Clarification Of Technique 1.3
>   > CMcCN: "Hmmm. I am absolutely opposed to this reasoning"
>   >
>   > WL: I second the notion. Just because there's a huge body of
>   > inaccessible material is no excuse for condoning it.
>   >
>   > --
>   > Love.
>   > http://dicomp.pair.com
>   >
> --
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
> Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
> Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia
Received on Monday, 21 August 2000 15:30:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:31:56 UTC